Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[SMK]

Meet LKB, the ultimate liar and perverter of justice. Also a defence shill who bailed on the defence because there was nothing in it for her but is still in the defence's pocket spreading lies and misinformation .

(Elemetary)

But for Bradley to be doing this, and the New York Times running with it, if untrue, is despicable.

 

[Nova24]

Well, I am seeing things all over the web, pieces posted, and all of them referring back to the one NY Times piece, and posters saying "these prosecutors must be tried for this misconduct" etc., and I am getting tired of not being able to trust mainstream news anymore. If they are sinking to the level of tabloids, where DOES one get the news???

Media lies. CM lied in that article. Unfortunately the more sensational it is the more it sells. Doesn't speak well of our society.

State isn't in trouble over this. The court was made aware. DT and JP knew. LDB didn't make mention again after she was aware of the error in the data.

 

[elementary]

Since prosecutors are backed by the power of the state, they are usually subject to special professional responsibility rules in addition to those binding all lawyers. Scorched earth policy has nothing to do with this. IMO

I understand that the State has to be almost compulsively scrupulous. But this does not answer my original question about the defence. Nor did you answer it for others. What standards are acceptable for the defence? Lies? Smearing? Deception? Discovery violations? Does the defence have carte blanche?

 

[Americka]

The NY Times wasn't the only one who ran with it...

 

[elementary]

(Elemetary)

But for Bradley to be doing this, and the New York Times running with it, if untrue, is despicable.

Yes, the highly esteemed NYT. Makes one wonder. So does Bradley. While LKB perpetuates the lies.

 

[Nova24]

(Elemetary)

But for Bradley to be doing this, and the New York Times running with it, if untrue, is despicable.

If NYT had done their due dilligence they would know CM was lying. He was in court when it was discussed. It's public record. They can see it just like like we can. I take issue to CM lying inthis article. And unfortunately this misinformation came from Bradley. He's trying to do some damage control but people reading the article will see he testified under oath to something he felt didn't sound right. He should have stopped talking right then and there. You verify your info before testifying not after it.

 

[yllek]

The State said early today that they wouldn't respond to Bradley's claims published in the NY Times. I am very glad they decided to respond.

It was difficult reading this thread. The State's own computer expert made claims that most certainly alluded to the State being aware that they were presenting faulty and incriminating reports in regard to the computer searches. Most everyone posting expressed opinions about Bradley's claims by predicating, "IF they are true" or something to that effect. I thought the state did a good job at trial and I feel that Casey Anthony is guilty as hell. Others feel opposite about who performed well and agree with the verdict. That didn't have anything to do with this topic, imo. This was about a specific claim surrounding a key piece of evidence for the prosecution in this case (whether the jury regarded or disregarded it as such was irrelevant; it was a key focal point and thus a matter of importance, imo).

As the thread progressed, it almost felt like if you support the State Attorneys and believe Casey is guilty, you were somehow being a traitor for examining this claim and its possible implications, IF true. This wasn't a claim thrown out by the Defense Team, who we know were eventually made aware of the error and capitalized on the State's mistake at the end of the trial (though Mason, as usual, twisted it to appear like a newly discovered secret once the media was involved). This was a claim by someone the State itself qualified as an expert in computer science/forensics who implied that a specific State's Attorney chose to use faulty evidence against his advice and encouraged him to testify to the data in a faulty report, even though they both knew the data was wrong and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't sound like the LDB we watched in the court room and pretty serious allegations; they needed to be addressed imo.

With the State's response to Bradley's accusations, it appears the man is simply looking to take the heat off of himself for producing faulty software. I am glad and thankful that the State decided to address the allegations made by their expert witness and I trust that the DT was made aware of the error by the State immediately after they learned of it from Bradley. Sounds like that is how it went down, rather than Baez having discovered the error himself (implying the State did not inform DT).

I don't agree with assuming any specific claim is true and trashing either side without having the full picture, but sure hope it's never seen as wrong to be objective and inquiring about any issue/claim of possible significance that arises in any case, no matter what side of the courtroom you're sitting on. Without questions we don't get answers... JMO...

 

[SMK]

The State said early today that they wouldn't respond to Bradley's claims published in the NY Times. I am very glad they decided to respond.

It was difficult reading this thread. The State's own computer expert made claims that most certainly alluded to the State being aware that they were presenting faulty and incriminating reports in regard to the computer searches. Most everyone posting expressed opinions about Bradley's claims by predicating, "IF they are true" or something to that effect. I thought the state did a good job at trial and I feel that Casey Anthony is guilty as hell. Others feel opposite about who performed well and agree with the verdict. That didn't have anything to do with this topic, imo. This was about a specific claim surrounding a key piece of evidence for the prosecution in this case (whether the jury regarded or disregarded it as such was irrelevant; it was a key focal point and thus a matter of importance, imo).

As the thread progressed, it almost felt like if you support the State Attorneys and believe Casey is guilty, you were somehow being a traitor for examining this claim and its possible implications, IF true. This wasn't a claim thrown out by the Defense Team, who we know were eventually made aware of the error and capitalized on the State's mistake at the end of the trial (though Mason, as usual, twisted it to appear like a newly discovered secret once the media was involved). This was a claim by someone the State itself qualified as an expert in computer science/forensics who implied that a specific State's Attorney chose to use faulty evidence against his advice and encouraged him to testify to the data in a faulty report, even though they both knew the data was wrong and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't sound like the LDB we watched in the court room and pretty serious allegations; they needed to be addressed imo.

With the State's response to Bradley's accusations, it appears the man is simply looking to take the heat off of himself for producing faulty software. I am glad and thankful that the State decided to address the allegations made by their expert witness and I trust that the DT was made aware of the error by the State immediately after they learned of it from Bradley. Sounds like that is how it went down, rather than Baez having discovered the error himself (implying the State did not inform DT).

I don't agree with assuming any specific claim is true and trashing either side without having the full picture, but sure hope it's never seen as wrong to be objective and inquiring about any issue/claim of possible significance that arises in any case, no matter what side of the courtroom you're sitting on. Without questions we don't get answers... JMO...

I agree with all you are saying, but unfortunately, I was under the impression that a publication such as the NY Times would not dare run a piece unless the facts were absolutely true. Therefore, I assumed it was a foregone conclusion and a done deal that the State had misled and concealed. I am upset to realize that you really have to take all news with a grain of salt. Who has time to investigate every article they read???

 

[BiancaS]

And NYT will print a retraction, just small enough that most skip over it.

I wrote a comment on the NYT article hours ago, listing the correct info with a link to the video. It was not published. I sent it again. Not published. I emailed them, saying one would assume the NYT would research BEFORE publishing an article that was so inflammatory, especially on a case that has emotions so high.

The NYT article has been quoted all over the Internet today, causing an incredible amount of negative attention to the Prosecution Team. I asked why the article has not been retracted, especially when the State Attorney's Office has responded to the false accusations. I told them I want a response. I doubt I will get one, but this is just so irresponsible that I had to at least try.

I was saying all day long that I didn't trust that "expert." And...the ones that did earn my trust are the ones that still deserve our trust and respect --- the Prosecution Team.

 

[SMK]

I wrote a comment on the NYT article hours ago, listing the correct info with a link to the video. It was not published. I sent it again. Not published. I emailed them, saying one would assume the NYT would research BEFORE publishing an article that was so inflammatory, especially on a case that has emotions so high.

The NYT article has been quoted all over the Internet today, causing an incredible amount of negative attention to the Prosecution Team. I asked why the article has not been retracted, especially when the State Attorney's Office has responded to the false accusations. I told them I want a response. I doubt I will get one, but this is just so irresponsible that I had to at least try.

I was saying all day long that I didn't trust that "expert." And...the ones that did earn my trust are the ones that still deserve our trust and respect --- the Prosecution Team.

I guess the New York Times just isn't what it used to be. Had I not read the story there, I would never have been interested enough to comment all day on it.....

 

[LambChop]

I guess the New York Times just isn't what it used to be. Had I not read the story there, I would never have been interested enough to comment all day on it.....

I know. Waste, huge waste of a day.

 

[grammieto5]

No, I believe all lawyer should have standards, but we know from history that is not case, including this case.

The Defense ought to have standards , too, of course. But the prosecution legally bears the burden of proof, and must adhere to the higher ethical standard, as they represent the State and the people, not just one defendant.

just imagine if both sides had to present their cases using the same standards, that would be true justice, for criminal and victim. I think that is what needs to be changed in our justice system.

 

[Maia]

I don't agree with assuming any specific claim is true and trashing either side without having the full picture, but sure hope it's never seen as wrong to be objective and inquiring about any issue/claim of possible significance that arises in any case, no matter what side of the courtroom you're sitting on. Without questions we don't get answers... JMO...

Respectfully snipped:

I applaud you for this!! This is absolutely the most sensible statement I have seen posted on this topic.

It also seems to me that if someone (any one of us...myself included) had put a little more time and effort into looking for the video of the trial, a lot of angst and frustration would have been avoided.

I think most of us know that the media can not be trusted. It has come to the point that the only criteria for a story is dirt. Kinda reminds me of the not so recent song "Dirty Laundry". Sadly, sensationalism and ratings are all that matter to media anymore. It has nothing to do with verifying the truth.

JMO

 

[Bobbisangel]

And its not even about being wrong about the number. Its that NG and other media picked it up and said to the public, 89 times! 89 times she searched for how to make chloroform!!! Well, 89 times would make anyone believe she was murderous and serious about killing her child in this matter. That is terrible, no wonder so many people who didn't follow the case so close and relied on the media were baffled when Casey got acquitted! And then if the State knew the 89 times were not accurate and used it anyways........jmo

The computer expert on the stand said that he found chloroform had been searched for 84 times. He was the expert and the Pros believed him. I think Casey Anthony would have gotten off regardless of how many time chloroform had been searched...one time or 84 times. The jury focused on George Anthony and had their minds made up early on.

 

[Overuled]

LKB and her man MB have magically disappeared from the talk shows. Maybe we will see them again when she dumps another body.

 

[Overuled]

The computer expert on the stand said that he found chloroform had been searched for 84 times. He was the expert and the Pros believed him. I think Casey Anthony would have gotten off regardless of how many time chloroform had been searched...one time or 84 times. The jury focused on George Anthony and had their minds made up early on.

So true you are...it wouldn't have mattered if they had a video of the actual crime. This jury was out to make sure she walked. jmo

 

[Angelonline]

I guess the New York Times just isn't what it used to be. Had I not read the story there, I would never have been interested enough to comment all day on it.....

The New York Times IMO is often inaccurate and has had to print many retractions, corrections, or downright apologies for its stories-
Here are a few examples:

Alzheimers Mixup?
http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlangr...azing-correction-on-alzheimers-disease-story/

Acorn Pimp Story (SMH)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/new-york-times-issues-cor_n_509275.html

Said Clinton Criticized Democrats but should have said Republicans...
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2006/07/18/6370/clinton-retraction/

And my personal Favorite George Bush and the Turkey
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/bush_and_the_turkey/

Anyhow IMO you can never fully trust the media, always look for sources and when you find those look again.

 

[RoseRed]

:maddening:

I am just appalled by the number of people who want to hold the State and Linda Drane-Burdick "responsible" for the mistake of this computer "witness" ...

I also want to know WHY these same people who want to hold the State and LDB responsible for an error made by a computer witness, are NOT screaming to hold Jose Baez responsible for his LIES in his Opening Statement ?

I know Opening Statement is NOT evidence -- but Jose put it out there -- the Jury heard -- and they "bought" it ! :banghead:

You just can't have it both ways ...

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

Defence does NOT have to prove anything, burden is on the State to prove guilt.

 

[gxm]

Hey, a lot of folks jumped to the conclusion that the SAs were at fault. IMO, it was a huge leap especially considering the multitude of comments by members stating that this had already been discussed in court and that LDB did not mention "84" in her closing. I tried to point out the JB "smoke and mirrors" similarity but some folks seemed he77bent on making a JB mole hill mountain instead of laying back and waiting for the state's response.

FWIW, the state of journalism is deplorable. It ain't what it used to be. Take everything you read in MSM with an industrial size grain of salt.

Lastly, that computer guy sure seems facts challenged. It's sad to see so many of the people involved with this trial who were in it for their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about a young child's murder. That's about the only thing learned from today's lesson.

 

[Concerned Papa]

For me, the bottom line for all of this pathetic attempt at discrediting the State Attorney's office begins and ends with an EX cop turned software whiz who developed AND marketed a faulty product.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office used BRADLEY'S software to verify and validate their forensic analysis, just as his business product's purpose was marketed. He was even called by the State as a witness regarding the design and purpose of his software.

Bradley didn't even have a clue his program was no good until AFTER he testified on June 8:

Bradley said he first became suspicious of the data after he testified on June 8.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1

And that was only AFTER he found out his business competition came up with an entirely different result:

Mr. Bradley learned during the defense portion of the case that the police had written a first report in August 2008 detailing Ms. Anthony’s history of Internet searches. That report used NetAnalysis, a different software.

Bradley is the one who, upon hearing his competition's results, decided HE needed to "go back to the drawing board" and fix his faulty product.

And now the very one who was DIRECTLY responsible for inaccurate information being entered into court record in this matter is trying to say the State of Florida did something wrong?